The Following article originated at and
is taken from DiscoverTheNetworks.com

Human Rights Watch (HRW) was founded in 1978 as
“Helsinki Watch,” to monitor the Soviet Union’s compliance with the
human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords. Among its founders
were Bob Bernstein, CEO of Random House publishers; Aryeh Neier, the
current President of the Open Society Institute, a former Executive Director of the
American Civil Liberties Union, and a co-founder of
Students for a Democratic Society in 1959;
Orville Schell, Dean of the
University of California at Berkley graduate school of
journalism and a leftwing journalist; and Jeri Laber, a writer and
political activist. In the 1980s, the organization developed a
number of “Watch” committees, including Americas Watch, Asia Watch,
and Africa Watch, which ultimately united under the umbrella of the
U.S.-based HRW in 1988. Today HRW
states that
its “principle advocacy strategy is to shame offenders by generating
press attention and to exert diplomatic and economic pressure on
them by enlisting influential governments and institutions” on a
wide array of issues.

Even as it documented abuses in the Soviet Union, HRW directed much
of its censure in the 1980s at the United States. Particularly, the
organization denounced the Reagan administration’s policy of
combating Soviet expansionism in Latin America by aiding
anti-Communist governments and opposition forces. In her
autobiography, The Courage of Strangers, Jeri Laber noted
that “Americas Watch reports … were eagerly read in the United
States by people who deplored the Reagan policies.” Aryeh Neier, who
served as Executive Director of HRW for 12 years, would later write
that Americas Watch (AW) could deflect charges of political bias
against the Reagan administration’s policies because it was also
critical of Communist regimes. Neier explained that this “made it
difficult for [the Reagan administration] to portray us as Soviet
dupes.”

In stark contrast to AW’s roundly critical appraisal of American
policies in Latin America and anti-Communist movements allied with
the United States, was its comparatively indulgent assessment of
Communist regimes in the region. In Nicaragua, AW routinely
portrayed anti-Communist guerillas, the Contras, as the leading
threat to human rights while giving short shrift to the abuses of
the Communist Sandinista regime. Moreover, AW charged that the
Reagan administration was unfairly maligning the Sandinistas.

Symptomatic of this preferential treatment of the Sandinistas was a
1985 AW report titled “Human Rights in Nicaragua: Reagan, Rhetoric
and Reality.” While allowing that the Sandinistas had committed
human rights abuses, the report reposed the greatest share of the
blame on the Reagan administration, claiming that “U.S. officials
have built and edifice of innuendo and exaggeration” about the
Sandinista regime and were guilty of the “misuse of human rights
data.” More favorable was the report’s view of the Sandinistas.
Whereas other non-governmental organizations, backed by eyewitness
reports from Nicaraguan exiles, had identified a widespread pattern
of state-sponsored repression, murder and torture, AW’s report
dismissed such concerns, averring that “[i]n Nicaragua, there is no
systematic practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings
…” Despite a government crackdown on political dissent, the AW
report claimed that “debate on major social and political questions
is robust.” Noting that “emergency legislation” had imposed
censorship in the country, the AW report discounted its impact on
free-speech rights. Overall, the report concluded, the “description
of a totalitarian state bears no resemblance to Nicaragua in 1985.”

Human Rights Watch purports to be “strictly non-partisan” in
orientation and maintains that it “does not favor any political
force.” In practice, HRW has often operated as a partisan
organization, dressing up its decidedly leftwing political
preferences in the language of human rights.

In the United States, HRW regularly interjects
itself into domestic political disputes in support of left-liberal
positions. For example, the organization
maintains that
“equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a
human right.” HRW also has sided against traditionalist opponents of
gay marriage.
Said
HRW Executive Director
Kenneth Roth in 2003: “It is discriminatory to refuse to
recognize marriages on the basis of sexual orientation.” The
following year, HRW was a signatory to an
amicus brief
to the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, urging it to affirm
the legality of same-sex marriage.

HRW is an opponent, “in all circumstances,” of the death penalty. In
defense of this position, HRW
claims that
capital punishment is incompatible with “human rights” because it is
“a form of punishment that is unique in its barbarity and finality.”
Consistent with this absolutist stance, HRW condemned the December
31, 2006 execution of former Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein, calling his death sentence "indefensible."
Richard Dicker, Director of HRW’s International Justice Program,
stated that the “test of a government's commitment to human rights
is measured by the way it treats its worst offenders,” adding,
“History will judge these actions harshly.”

With recourse to the rhetoric of human rights, HRW also opposes all
enforcement of American immigration laws. In 2005, the organization
urged Congress to oppose the “Border Protection, Antiterrorism,
and Illegal Immigration Control Act,” which provided for a number of
measures to strengthen border security. Referring to illegal
immigrants as “undocumented workers,” HRW has
defended the “right” of illegals to organize unions and has
condemned employers who “threaten to call immigration authorities if
workers seek to organize or make claims for labor law protection.”
HRW has also
called
on the U.S. government to enact legislation conferring the rights of
full citizenship to individuals “regardless of their immigration
status,” and “prohibiting any inquiry into … immigration status.”

Human Rights Watch is a vocal supporter of institutions like the
International Criminal Court (ICC). A 1998 HRW
report,
titled “The Danger of Indulging Great Power Arrogance on Human
Rights,” took issue with America’s refusal to cede authority to the
ICC. Scolding the United States for exhibiting “great power
arrogance toward international human rights institutions,” the
report declared: “If the U.S. government persists in its current
attitude toward international human rights law, the international
community should simply leave the United States behind.”

While professing neutrality in matters of war and peace, HRW has
been a staunch foe of the American-led war on terror. The
organization was a signatory to a November 1, 2001
document
characterizing the 9/11 attacks as a legal matter to be addressed by
criminal-justice procedures rather than military means. Ascribing
the hijackers’ motives to alleged social injustices against which
they were protesting, this document explained that “security and
justice are mutually reinforcing goals that ultimately depend upon
the promotion of all human rights for all people,” and called on the
United States “to promote fundamental rights around the world.”
Similarly, in 2002 HRW
claimed
that the United States and its coalition allies “have substituted
expediency for the firm commitment to human rights that alone can
defeat the rationale of terrorism.” Moreover, HRW warned that “the
coalition risks reinforcing the logic of terrorism unless human
rights are given a far more central role.” That is, unless coalition
forces followed HRW’s distinctive definition of human rights, they
were only reinforcing the “view that anything goes in the name of a
cause.”

HRW endorsed
the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to
roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital
national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11
terrorist attacks.

With regard to the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, HRW
has consistently judged the actions of coalition forces to be
contrary to human rights. Several HRW reports have
alleged an “excessive use of force by U.S. troops,” even as the
organization has conceded that it has only incomplete information
about the facts on the ground in Iraq. In one such instance, when
Americans battled insurgent forces in the city of Fallujah in April
of 2004, the organization reported that it was “deeply concerned
about the consistent reports we are getting about women, children
and unarmed civilians being killed” by American forces. At the same
time, HRW admitted that it had no clear knowledge “whether any
crimes have been committed” by the military.

Connected with its criticism of the war effort, Human Rights Watch
has routinely condemned American interrogation and detention
policies. Among other objections, HRW claims that a form of coercive
interrogation known as “waterboarding” constitutes “torture.”

A leading opponent of military commissions created by the United
States to try detainees suspected of terrorist activities, Human
Rights Watch has criticized the U.S. for not granting the
“fundamental right” of habeas corpus to those prisoners. In
addition, HRW has
denounced
the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a
violation of international law.

HRW also directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at
Israel. Following an April 2002 counterterrorism operation by the
Israeli military in the
Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin, the organization issued a
report
charging that “IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] military attacks
were indiscriminate,” and that “Israeli forces committed serious
violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting
prima facie to war crimes.” Contrary to HRW’s charges, which
echoed Palestinian propaganda, a United Nations report later
exonerated the Israeli forces.

HRW released an equally one-sided attack in August of 2006, amid
Israel’s war with
Hezbollah terrorists in southern Lebanon. Titled “Israel’s
Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon,” this report
repeated many of the same charges that the organization had leveled
against Israel during the Jenin controversy. Among other claims, the
document asserted that Israel was guilty of “consistently failing to
distinguish between combatants and civilians,” and that “the extent
of the pattern and the seriousness of the consequences indicate the
commission of war crimes.”

Human Rights Watch has
denounced Israel’s construction of an anti-terrorism security
barrier in the West Bank as a violation of Palestinians’ human
rights.
Joe Stork, the acting Director of HRW’s Middle East and Africa
Division, claims that the barrier “seriously impedes Palestinian
access to essentials of civilian life, such as work, education and
medical care.”

In September 2007 HRW issued a
report (titled “No Easy Answers”) asserting that many state
laws which target convicted sex offenders violate the rights of
people who pose a minimal risk to others, and calling for the repeal
of laws that restrict ex-offenders from living near schools, parks
and other designated facilities. “Residency restrictions solve
nothing,” said Sarah Tofte, the HRW report’s principal author. “They
simply make it nearly impossible for former offenders to put their
lives back together.”

Stating that recidivism rates are lower than claimed by
tough-on-crime politicians, the report also opposed laws requiring
the registration of convicted sex offenders and the creation of
online, publicly accessible registries listing the names of such
individuals. The report further contended that while state laws aim
chiefly to protect children from sexual abuse by strangers, most
abuse is actually committed by family members and trusted authority
figures.

In 2008, HRW co-founded the
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCRP). Other
GCRP co-founders included the
International Crisis Group and
Oxfam International.

In May 2009, HRW's Middle East and North Africa division director
Sarah Leah Whitson went to Saudi Arabia
to raise funds for the expressly stated purpose of helping HRW
counter “pro-Israel pressure groups.”

In September 2010, billionaire philanthropist
George Soros -- founder of the Open Society Institute --
announced that he would give $100 million to HRW. This donation
would permit the organization to add 120 new staffers to its
existing 300-strong payroll.

In February 2011, HRW
appointed
Shawan Jabarin, the head of
Al Haq and allegedly a senior activist in the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), to its
Middle East Advisory Board.

HRW has received funding from many foundations, including the
Ahmanson Foundation; the
Carnegie Corporation of New York; the
Columbia Foundation; the
Ford Foundation; the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the
Nathan Cummings Foundation; the
JEHT Foundation; the
Joyce Foundation; the
J.M. Kaplan Fund; the
Open Society Institute; the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the
Righteous Persons Foundation; the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund; the
Rockefeller Foundation; and the
Scherman Foundation.